- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:18:48 -0700
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 3/14/19 10:07 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote: > > But generally, with decreasing ability for Director to know the in-and-out of very topic given the > ever larger scope, I think we should (continue to) support moving to a model where technical > arguments are mostly not heard by the Director during FOs and instead belong to the Working Group, > and FOs are mostly a means for call for a fair hearing when feeling you didn't get one. I think there's also cases where the WG might be intentionally disregarding the FO because its choice of design principles disagrees with the FO, and that's not an issue of process but of technical architecture. In such cases a review of the issue by a higher technical authority representing W3C's technical values and expertise as a whole is warranted. A qualified Director, in consultation with the TAG and other experts, should be able to adjudicate such issues on technical grounds: it's not always and only about process. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 15 March 2019 20:19:13 UTC